MCU Thor Upgrade Calcs for Star Level Durability

[ParkerKent007]

I am submitting the following evidence, science, and calculations to upgrade MCU Thor to Star Level Durability. (I'm new here, sincere apologies if the format / style is off.)

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Thor_(Marvel_Cinematic_Universe)#Powers_and_Stats

Thor 1 and Thor 4 define the Bifrost as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge Wormhole:

Thor 1 (Jane and Selvig are astrophysicists):




Thor 4 (Jane cites two real movies that explicitly use black holes to access wormholes):




---

Therefore MCU Thor has consistently tanked at least this:

Energy needed to sustain a wormhole with a diameter ONE MILLIONTH THE SIZE OF A PROTON: 10 Billion suns in one year
Source (NASA): https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-4.html

AND ...

The Total Remaining Energy Output of the Sun: E = mc² = 1.8x10^47 Joules
Source (University of Texas): http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring06/komatsu/secure/lecture05.pdf

E = mc², where m is the mass of an object; c is the speed of light constant value of 299,792,458 m/s; E is the rest energy of the object

Mass of the Sun: 1,988,500 x 10^24 kg
Source (NASA): https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html

Why? Thor's durability is consistently shown to be at least at the above levels in each of his solo movies, and Infinity War:

Thor 1 he tanked the exploding Bifrost, which created a black hole and sucked in stars. So the Bifrost can produce more than 100 Million solar masses: E = mc² = 1.8x10^55 Joules
Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/f_blackhole-briefing.html

Thor 2 he survived a Reality Stone explosion, preventing the immediate destruction of the universe. Mass of Universe: E = mc² = 1.73 × 10^53 kg = 1.5x10^70 to 2.825x10^92 Joules
Source (Scientific Research): https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93762
Source (VS Battles): https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/U..._GBE_Formula:_Revised_Attack_Potency#The_Math

Thor 3 he tanked getting pushed through the Bifrost, an Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole (black hole + white hole) of at least 7.6 solar masses: E = mc² = 1.4x10^48 Joules
Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/smallest_blackhole.html

Infinity War he survived a Power Stone explosion that destroyed a spaceship which tanked the singularity of a collapsing neutron star (at least 1.3 solar masses) inside an Einstein-Rosen Bridge (at least 7.6 solar masses): E = mc² = 1.8x10^48 Joules
Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/...rs cram roughly 1.3,the same as Mount Everest!

Thor 4 he beat Zeus, Zeus whose flick vaporized Thor's armor, armor which withstood all the above damage. Thor also empowered Jane, and using Thor's power, they beat Gorr, Gorr who fully resisted the pull of the Bifrost.

*Note: Regarding Nidavellir, the surface of the average neutron star is 1.8 Million degrees Fahrenheit, superfluid core can range from 500 Million to 1 Billion degrees Celsius, their average gravity is 71 Million times that of the Sun
Surface Temperature Source (US Department of Energy): https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsneutron-stars
Core Temperature Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/casa2011.html
Earth Gravity Source (Space.com): https://www.space.com/22180-neutron-stars.html
Sun Gravity Source (Farmers Almanac): https://www.almanac.com/content/gravitational-pull-sun

---

Real world definitions of an Einstein-Rosen Bridge Wormhole:

"A wormhole is a hypothetical type of tunnel consisting of two entrance holes that resemble black holes. The entrance holes can be far apart, yet connected by a tube that extends through hyperspace."
Source (NASA): https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-4.html

"The wormhole joining the two separate Universes is known as the Einstein-Rosen bridge ... a wormhole, the region of spacetime between the white hole and black hole singularities."
Source (University of Colorado): https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bh/schww.html

"Einstein and Rosen discovered that, theoretically at least, a black hole’s surface might work as a bridge that connected to a second patch of space."
Source (Scientific American): https://www.scientificamerican.com/...cetime-may-be-possible-new-research-suggests/

"One simple version of a wormhole, called an Einstein-Rosen bridge, consists of a pair of black holes stuck back-to-back, each facing out into its own realm of the universe or universes and connected by a “throat” — the wormhole."
Source (New York Times): https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/13/science/wormholes-physics-astronomy-cosmos.html

---

Solar Masses of Black Holes:

Black hole with smallest known mass = 3.8 solar masses
Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/smallest_blackhole.html

Black hole Sgr A* with stars orbiting it at the center of the Milky Way galaxy = 4 Million solar masses
Source (NASA): https://science.nasa.gov/milky-ways-black-hole

Black hole in galaxy RX J1242-11, which ATE A STAR EQUAL IN MASS TO OUR SUN = 100 Million solar masses
Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/features/f_blackhole-briefing.html

Black hole in the Messier 87 (M87) galaxy = 6.5 Billion (yes, BILLION) solar masses
Source (NASA): https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/new-nasa-black-hole-sonifications-with-a-remix.html

---

MCU Thor Feat Clips:

Thor tanking the Bifrost explosion as it swirls stars that are each light years away, while the Bifrost destroys a planet in another galaxy:




Black hole created by the Bifrost, as that black hole eats stars:




Thor stopping Malekith from destroying the universe, taking a Reality Stone explosion to the face in the process:




Dark World timestamps proving that universal destruction would have occurred very quickly:

1:25:28 -- Thor: "He must be in exactly the right place at the right time"

1:29:41 -- Selvig: "The Convergence will be in full effect in seven minutes."

1:29:43 -- Jane: "That just means we have to keep Malekith busy for eight."

1:35:09 -- Selvig: "The Convergence is at its peak."

1:36:45 -- Thor stops Malekith as the Reality Stone explodes in his face


Zeus vaporizes Thor's armor (boot and wrist gauntlets shown, the cloak blows off, Zeus' lightning bathes Thor, Thor says "you flicked too hard" -- showing physical force is used -- not hax / transmutation / teleportation):

https://youtu.be/gRQjoyRX7R8


Thor beats Zeus, stopping the force of Zeus' weapon, then one-shots Zeus in front of the most powerful gods in the universe and two Celestials who attend Zeus' court (one Celestial can planet bust and create a star):

https://youtu.be/EXVggFMfSlg


Gorr fully resists the pull of the Bifrost:

https://gfycat.com/arcticcolorlessestuarinecrocodile-love-and-thunder-thor


The power of Thor beats Gorr:

https://youtu.be/LLXhFV_runU

 

[Dalesean027]

Can this be closed we've already got pur own upgrades and things we're working on for Thor on the MCU side of things and this will just make it harder and has a lot less put into it with much weaker evidence

 

[ParkerKent007]

Can this be closed we've already got pur own upgrades and things we're working on for Thor on the MCU side of things and this will just make it harder and has a lot less put into it with much weaker evidence

Until you show your evidence, how do we know what I've written is much weaker? You have not even refuted anything I supplied.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

As much as I disagree with this for reasons any scaler on this site is aware of, the person did explicitly state they were new here.
Don't just shut down their thread because you're too incredulous, debunk their stuff. And if you can, just call in someone who can, or link a thread where the arguments have been addressed (if they were) in the past.

It's blatantly troll when it comes to threads like 3-A One Piece, but this person put actual effort on making this thread, at least have the decency to address their points.

 

[KingTempest]

Regardless if this is an outlier or something brushed to the side, I applaud your research

 

[Dalesean027]

Don't just shut down their thread because you're too incredulous, debunk their stuff. And if you can, just call in someone who can, or link a thread where the arguments have been addressed (if they were) in the past.

It's blatantly troll when it comes to threads like 3-A One Piece, but this person put actual effort on making this thread, at least have the decency to address their points

Apologies I wasn't trying to make it seem like that, we do have our own work we're doing for star level thor as well that we've been working on in the community, I was looking at this moreso from the perspective of a thread from a user who didn't consult the community on what they're current plans or thoughts were before making the thread.

So once again I do apologize @ParkerKent007 for not properly addressing your points at first

The research is thorough I'll say

 

[ParkerKent007]

@Dalesean027 it's all good, I look forward to reading your work on this topic.

 

[KLOL506]

Can this be closed we've already got pur own upgrades and things we're working on for Thor on the MCU side of things and this will just make it harder and has a lot less put into it with much weaker evidence

I agree with Dalesean, literally the only thing even worth glancing at here is the Zeus-Celestial scaling (Which I actually do agree with), which will be handled in its own thread.

The rest of the feats look to be taken out of context, are over-time feats (And thus has no basis being scaled to the full energy taken over hours at a time) like the Jotunheim busting feat, are not used in a combat sense (Like the Bifrost stuff, which you claim opens wormholes yet while being fully charged would take quite a bit of time to destroy Jotunheim completely which would massively nerf the energy-per-second uptake, we do not allow continuous beam charges like this to add up for hours, we only take the energy tanked within one second, any longer and it's just endurance, it'd be the same as getting beat to death with a punch that can damage you but something you can easily walk off and recuperate from in minutes if given time), or have the feats not be used at their full potential (The attacking power of the Power Stone varies massively depending upon the size of the object you blow up with it, and its best feat so far is 5-A).

Zeus vaporizes Thor's armor (boot and wrist gauntlets shown, the cloak blows off, Zeus' lightning bathes Thor, Thor says "you flicked too hard" -- showing physical force is used -- not hax / transmutation / teleportation):

I don't see why Thor's armor is viable for scaling here, unless it's confirmed in-verse to be made of superstrong material which allows Thor to survive the attacks to begin with, we can just as easily throw it under the "inconsistent clothing durability" bus.

Even normal decorative armor made for the wow factor with no mystical properties in fiction can often at times be shown to laugh off multiverse level attacks yet have a tendency to be shredded by normal bullets or even charred by iron machines.

 

[ParkerKent007]

I agree with Dalesean, literally the only thing even worth glancing at here is the Zeus-Celestial scaling (Which I actually do agree with), which will be handled in its own thread.

The rest of the feats look to be taken out of context, are over-time feats (And thus has no basis being scaled to the full energy taken over hours at a time) like the Jotunheim busting feat, are not used in a combat sense (Like the Bifrost stuff, which you claim opens wormholes yet while being fully charged would take quite a bit of time to destroy Jotunheim completely which would massively nerf the energy-per-second uptake, we do not allow continuous beam charges like this to add up for hours, we only take the energy tanked within one second, any longer and it's just endurance, it'd be the same as getting beat to death with a punch that can damage you but something you can easily walk off and recuperate from in minutes if given time), or have the feats not be used at their full potential (The attacking power of the Power Stone varies massively depending upon the size of the object you blow up with it, and its best feat so far is 5-A).



I don't see why Thor's armor is viable for scaling here, unless it's confirmed in-verse to be made of superstrong material which allows Thor to survive the attacks to begin with, we can just as easily throw it under the "inconsistent clothing durability" bus.

Even normal decorative armor made for the wow factor with no mystical properties in fiction can often at times be shown to laugh off multiverse level attacks yet have a tendency to be shredded by normal bullets or even charred by iron machines.

Thanks for your feedback. I can address these points.

1. Bifrost energy beam in Thor 1: I agree it would take hours to bust Jotenheim. However, distance matters. The Bifrost was in Asgard, and Thor 2 shows the Nine Realms are all in separate galaxies. Energy needed for a laser beam to melt through at a wall 10 feet away is much less than energy needed for a laser beam to melt through a wall 10 miles away. Furthermore, given the real-world calc from NASA which I provided, on power needed to sustain even a tiny Einstein-Rosen Bridge, (wormhole with a diameter ONE MILLIONTH THE SIZE OF A PROTON: 10 Billion suns in one year) Thor tanking the multi-city-block sized Bifrost blast for the five seconds of onscreen time is still star-level. Again, the Bifrost was swirling stars, and quickly sucking them in, each of which were light years from each other.

2. Power Stone explosion in IW: Thor 3 gives the power needed to bust the Statesman spaceship. It must exceed the energy of a singularity created by a collapsing neutron star inside an Einsten-Rosen Bridge wormhole. Thor, Valkyrie, and Banner all discuss this explicitly, with Valkyrie saying her ship would get torn apart and she expected the attempt even in the Grandmaster's circular party ship to kill them. Thanos topped that with his Power Stone explosion in IW.

3. Thor's armor vaporization in Thor 4: Your point is valid in general, except Thor's armor has consistent feats of largely resisting damage while still showing the effects of various attacks. In Thor 1, his armor shows minor damage after Loki blasts and stabs him with Odin's staff Gungnir. In Thor 2, his armor is chipped away at the shoulders and arms showing bare skin after the Reality Stone explosion to prevent universal destruction. In Thor 3, his armor shows dents and cuts from Hela's necroblades. In IW, his armor gets charred to a crisp but stays on his body after Nidavellir. Therefore the MCU has shown repeatedly that Thor's armor is very strong but not impervious. As a result, Zeus vaporizing Thor's armor -- but not the emotion cloak, which got blown away -- is a real physical feat.

 

[KLOL506]

Thanks for your feedback. I can address these points.

1. Bifrost energy beam in Thor 1: I agree it would take hours to bust Jotenheim. However, distance matters. The Bifrost was in Asgard, and Thor 2 shows the Nine Realms are all in separate galaxies. Energy needed for a laser beam to melt through at a wall 10 feet away is much less than energy needed for a laser beam to melt through a wall 10 miles away. Furthermore, given the real-world calc from NASA which I provided, on power needed to sustain even a tiny Einstein-Rosen Bridge, (wormhole with a diameter ONE MILLIONTH THE SIZE OF A PROTON: 10 Billion suns in one year) Thor tanking the multi-city-block sized Bifrost blast for the five seconds of onscreen time is still star-level. Again, the Bifrost was swirling stars, and quickly sucking them in, each of which were light years from each other.

Nope, you cannot multiply energy by how many seconds Thor was in contact with that explosion. It's just endurance. 1 second is the max. It's literally in the name Joules/second

We also cannot extrapolate energy like that for beams because they're wildly different from omnidirectional explosions, which we can indeed find the yield for at the epicenter based on how much energy they have left at the edge. Same can't be said for beams tho, wildly different formula, which I don't even think was accepted last time we tried it on the One Punch Man CRT for Garou and Saitama turning a star-filled space into a void.

2. Power Stone explosion in IW: Thor 3 gives the power needed to bust the Statesman spaceship. It must exceed the energy of a singularity created by a collapsing neutron star inside an Einsten-Rosen Bridge wormhole. Thor, Valkyrie, and Banner all discuss this explicitly, with Valkyrie saying her ship would get torn apart and she expected the attempt even in the Grandmaster's circular party ship to kill them. Thanos topped that with his Power Stone explosion in IW.

Unscaleable, Power Stone's AP depends wildly on the size of the celestial object it affects. Already said that. Meaning, Thanos's 5-A energy yield on planetary surfaces and moons doesn't get translated to the same energy when he uses it to punch Captain Marvel. We already made a CRT for this and are not going to change on this.

3. Thor's armor vaporization in Thor 4: Your point is valid in general, except Thor's armor has consistent feats of largely resisting damage while still showing the effects of various attacks. In Thor 1, his armor shows minor damage after Loki blasts and stabs him with Odin's staff Gungnir. In Thor 2, his armor is chipped away at the shoulders and arms showing bare skin after the Reality Stone explosion to prevent universal destruction. In Thor 3, his armor shows dents and cuts from Hela's necroblades. In IW, his armor gets charred to a crisp but stays on his body after Nidavellir. Therefore the MCU has shown repeatedly that Thor's armor is very strong but not impervious. As a result, Zeus vaporizing Thor's armor -- but not the emotion cloak, which got blown away -- is a real physical feat.

Not good enough evidence, we need explicit statements that Thor's armor is made to be as durable as him and is thus able to survive similar levels of damage as he does.

 

[ParkerKent007]

Nope, you cannot multiply energy by how many seconds Thor was in contact with that explosion. It's just endurance. 1 second is the max. It's literally in the name Joules/second

We also cannot extrapolate energy like that for beams because they're wildly different from omnidirectional explosions, which we can indeed find the yield for at the epicenter based on how much energy they have left at the edge. Same can't be said for beams tho, wildly different formula, which I don't even think was accepted last time we tried it on the One Punch Man CRT for Garou and Saitama turning a star-filled space into a void.


Unscaleable, Power Stone's AP depends wildly on the size of the celestial object it affects. Already said that. Meaning, Thanos's 5-A energy yield on planetary surfaces and moons doesn't get translated to the same energy when he uses it to punch Captain Marvel. We already made a CRT for this and are not going to change on this.


Not good enough evidence, we need explicit statements that Thor's armor is made to be as durable as him and is thus able to survive similar levels of damage as he does.

Okay, I only want to make productive contributions here. Therefore, just so I'm sure I understand:

1. You require explicit onscreen statements about armor durability, and do not accept onscreen visuals of armor surviving impacts while showing armor damage.

2. But you reject the combination of both explicit onscreen statements about the durability required to tank the force of the singularity of a collapsing neutron star inside an Einstein-Rosen Bridge, AND onscreen visuals of a character surviving an explosion that exceeded that force.

3. While you also reject for durability multiple joules during multiple seconds, that which you yourself call "endurance," despite the fact that NASA -- the leading global official organization on stellar objects -- uses joules to calculate the sun's energy output over both 24 hours and an entire year.
(https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance)

Please let me know if I get what you are saying. If so, any future posts from me will try to follow these guidelines. Thanks.

 

[KLOL506]

Okay, I only want to make productive contributions here. Therefore, just so I'm sure I understand:

1. You require explicit onscreen statements about armor durability, and do not accept onscreen visuals of armor surviving impacts while showing armor damage.

Doesn't need to be on-screen, secondary guidebook statements work, but yes. You need verifiable, in-canon statements that don't contradict stuff on-screen to confirm that the outfit is made to be that durable.

2. But you reject the combination of both explicit onscreen statements about the durability required to tank the force of the singularity of a collapsing neutron star inside an Einstein-Rosen Bridge, AND onscreen visuals of a character surviving an explosion that exceeded that force.

Said force being neutered by the time interval upon impact, and the force of the singularity varying wildly in terms of attack potency and the creation of the bridge in the first place, with said energy required to make the Einstein-Rosen bridge then not being used to blow up a star but rather a planet that took way longer than expected. We rejected a similar feat in Crysis 3 because the feat was not combat-applicable.

3. While you also reject for durability multiple joules during multiple seconds, that which you yourself call "endurance,"

Yes, that is the wiki standard, @DarkDragonMedeus and @DontTalkDT can elaborate more on it. One second is the maximum.

despite the fact that NASA -- the leading global official organization on stellar objects -- uses joules to calculate the sun's energy output over both 24 hours and an entire year.
(https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance)

No, we don't accept the Sun's energy interval over 24 hours or even an entire year either when it comes to durability ratings or even AP ratings, because there is no proof that all that energy then stacks up into one single spot. We don't accept cumulative damage here. It's why we take the energy taken within one second. That's how watts AKA joules/second works with regards to heat feats, electricity feats and many other similar feats like this. Same reason we don't assume multiple punches to stack up regardless of how much time it took, we only take the damage output for one punch, unless explicit in-verse statements exist that the damage stacks up to become a bigger value (But some parts it may become game mechanics and thus unusable).

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yes, taking X number of hits from a low damaging attack isn't on par with taking a single hit from an attack X times stronger. Damage output simply isn't linear IRL for the same reason a set of health bars with no defense/resistance state in mind. Likewise, having an infinite pool of energy could grant unlimited stamina, but it does not grant High 3-A stats by default.

If it takes a 1000 years to vaporize a mountain, it's not something we grant Island level for given the fact that it literally takes so long just to destroy an Island for much of the same reason that destroying a large city one building at a time wouldn't make you city level nor would destroying every planet and star in the universe one by one over time grant you 3-A, it would just be High 4-C now that Neutron Star GBE was revised.

So KLOL is correct that the energy output over time for continuous stuff would only be rated based on watts instead of joules.

 

[KLOL506]

now that Neutron Star GBE was revised.

Actually, it wasn't, we ****** up the math, turns out, GBE is indeed 4-B for a neutron star because we deadass used the wrong values (We confused mass numbers as GBE multipliers). In fact, using the nucleon and electronvolt values that Huzy mentioned and DontTalk thoroughly verified, we even got a slightly higher GBE for the neutron star (Which by default would mean a slightly higher energy end for baseline 3-A). But in the end, we decided to stick to the value Assalt used because there's really not that much of a difference.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Ah ****, I lost track of that near the end and 3-A baseline was never revised to begin with.

But the rest of my point still stands.

 

[ParkerKent007]

Doesn't need to be on-screen, secondary guidebook statements work, but yes. You need verifiable, in-canon statements that don't contradict stuff on-screen to confirm that the outfit is made to be that durable.


Said force being neutered by the time interval upon impact, and the force of the singularity varying wildly in terms of attack potency and the creation of the bridge in the first place, with said energy required to make the Einstein-Rosen bridge then not being used to blow up a star but rather a planet that took way longer than expected. We rejected a similar feat in Crysis 3 because the feat was not combat-applicable.


Yes, that is the wiki standard, @DarkDragonMedeus and @DontTalkDT can elaborate more on it. One second is the maximum.


No, we don't accept the Sun's energy interval over 24 hours or even an entire year either when it comes to durability ratings or even AP ratings, because there is no proof that all that energy then stacks up into one single spot. We don't accept cumulative damage here. It's why we take the energy taken within one second. That's how watts AKA joules/second works with regards to heat feats, electricity feats and many other similar feats like this. Same reason we don't assume multiple punches to stack up regardless of how much time it took, we only take the damage output for one punch, unless explicit in-verse statements exist that the damage stacks up to become a bigger value (But some parts it may become game mechanics and thus unusable).

Helpful. Thanks. Can you also advise on my final submission in the original post, about Gorr?

1. Gorr fully resists the pull of the Bifrost in the Shadow Realm, outlasting Thor who holds onto Stormbreaker against the Bifrost for a few seconds.

2. Thor 1 and Thor 4 explicitly define the Bifrost as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole.

3. NASA says a wormhole is a type of tunnel consisting of two entrance holes that resemble black holes; that a wormhole with a diameter one millionth the size of a proton would require the energy of 10 Billion suns in one year; and that the real-world black hole with the smallest known mass is 3.8 solar masses = 3.8 times the mass of the sun. (sources provided in the OP).

4. Given E = mc², this means Gorr fully resisted the equivalent energy of at least 6.8x10^47 Joules.

5. Thor empowered Jane, and using Thor's power, they beat Gorr, Gorr who fully resisted the pull of the Bifrost. Base level Jane is a normal human woman, so any feats by her with Mjolnir are due to the power of Thor, who enchanted Mjolnir on her behalf.

6. It is irrelevant that Thor was unaware of his actions. And, in Thor 3, Odin's spirit told Thor that the hammer was only to focus his power, that the hammer was never the source of Thor's strength. Therefore, Thor and Jane beating Gorr, who fully resisted the Bifrost, is a star-level feat (durability AND attack potency) for Thor.

 

[KLOL506]

Helpful. Thanks. Can you also advise on my final submission in the original post, about Gorr?

1. Gorr fully resists the pull of the Bifrost in the Shadow Realm, outlasting Thor who holds onto Stormbreaker against the Bifrost for a few seconds.

LS and durability, not AP.

2. Thor 1 and Thor 4 explicitly define the Bifrost as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole.

Which, as I've said, is never used for combat (The combat version is much weaker in energy yield as seen with Jotunheim requiring time to be blown up, which contradicts it being Star level.

3. NASA says a wormhole is a type of tunnel consisting of two entrance holes that resemble black holes; that a wormhole with a diameter one millionth the size of a proton would require the energy of 10 Billion suns in one year; and that the real-world black hole with the smallest known mass is 3.8 solar masses = 3.8 times the mass of the sun. (sources provided in the OP).

4. Given E = mc², this means Gorr fully resisted the equivalent energy of at least 6.8x10^47 Joules.

Irrelevant, that energy is not used up in 1 second, and is contradicted by once again, Jotunheim being slowly destroyed overtime.

Only way you get Thor to scale to that energy yield in full is if it generated 6.8e+47 W or 6.8e+47 joules PER SECOND. Not 6.8e+47 joules in ONE YEAR. If it's one year you divide the energy yield with the number of seconds in one year (3.154e+7 seconds), which equates to: 6.8e+47/3.154e+7= 2.1559924e+40 W or joules/sec (Low 4-C, Small Star level), and even then, it's contradicted by Jotunheim's slow destruction, with Jotunheim being a small and hollow planet.

5. Thor empowered Jane, and using Thor's power, they beat Gorr, Gorr who fully resisted the pull of the Bifrost. Base level Jane is a normal human woman, so any feats by her with Mjolnir are due to the power of Thor, who enchanted Mjolnir on her behalf.

Not sure where we denied that?

6. It is irrelevant that Thor was unaware of his actions. And, in Thor 3, Odin's spirit told Thor that the hammer was only to focus his power, that the hammer was never the source of Thor's strength. Therefore, Thor and Jane beating Gorr, who fully resisted the Bifrost, is a star-level feat (durability AND attack potency) for Thor.

Again, it can't be Star level because there is no evidence that it is outputting that many joules in the interval of a single second, and even the math is contradicted by the damage shown on screen. If it even outputted Low 4-C energy the planet would've been obliterated at near light speed, but it isn't. As DDM said, damage output in fiction isn't linear at all and can be wildly inconsistent at times.

 

[ParkerKent007]

LS and durability, not AP.


Which, as I've said, is never used for combat (The combat version is much weaker in energy yield as seen with Jotunheim requiring time to be blown up, which contradicts it being Star level.


Irrelevant, that energy is not used up in 1 second, and is contradicted by once again, Jotunheim being slowly destroyed overtime.

Only way you get Thor to scale to that energy yield in full is if it generated 6.8e+47 W or 6.8e+47 joules PER SECOND. Not 6.8e+47 joules in ONE YEAR. If it's one year you divide the energy yield with the number of seconds in one year (3.154e+7 seconds), which equates to: 6.8e+47/3.154e+7= 2.1559924e+40 W or joules/sec (Low 4-C, Small Star level), and even then, it's contradicted by Jotunheim's slow destruction, with Jotunheim being a small and hollow planet.


Not sure where we denied that?


Again, it can't be Star level because there is no evidence that it is outputting that many joules in the interval of a single second, and even the math is contradicted by the damage shown on screen. If it even outputted Low 4-C energy the planet would've been obliterated at near light speed, but it isn't. As DDM said, damage output in fiction isn't linear at all and can be wildly inconsistent at times.

So it is irrelevant that in Thor 1 the Bifrost was hitting a planet in another galaxy while sucking in multiple stars? How does the energy required to produce such damage, from that far away, become irrelevant to the calc? Even if you only go by what's shown onscreen, the Bifrost toppled multiple skyscraper sized giant ice spires on Jotenheim, from at least a galaxy away, WHILE the Bifrost also visibly sucked in at least 12 stars that were also light years away. All this is shown onscreen. If the goal is to determine as close to realistic an energy output, why is all of this ignored?

 

[KLOL506]

So it is irrelevant that in Thor 1 the Bifrost was hitting a planet in another galaxy while sucking in multiple stars?

Where is this proven? Do you have proof it was physically sucking in multiple stars?

How does the energy required to produce such damage, from that far away, become irrelevant to the calc?

The moment you start measuring its energy yield over a span of a few years instead of the energy output it gives out at the source every second.

Even if you only go by what's shown onscreen, the Bifrost toppled multiple skyscraper sized giant ice spires on Jotenheim, from at least a galaxy away, WHILE the Bifrost also visibly sucked in at least 12 stars that were also light years away. All this is shown onscreen. If the goal is to determine as close to realistic an energy output, why is all of this ignored?

Again though, is there any evidence that the stars were physically sucked in and destroyed and not just a visual effect?

You should also know the scaling problems it will bring with it given that Loki was literally close to point-blank range when the Bifrost detonated.

 

[ParkerKent007]

Where is this proven? Do you have proof it was physically sucking in multiple stars?


The moment you start measuring its energy yield over a span of a few years instead of the energy output it gives out at the source every second.


Again though, is there any evidence that the stars were physically sucked in and destroyed and not just a visual effect?

You should also know the scaling problems it will bring with it given that Loki was literally close to point-blank range when the Bifrost detonated.

"Not just a visual effect." If you're not denying that we see glowing white dots circle a hole in space, and you're not denying that we then see those glowing white dots fall into that hole in space, and you're not denying that we then see Loki fall into that hole in space and disappear, then I don't know how to answer that except to say that everything shown onscreen in a movie is a visual effect.

As for the proof, this comes from astrophysicist Jane Foster's statements in Thor 1 and Thor 4 that the Bifrost is an Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole; knowledge of the scientific definition (sources provided in the OP) of it as a traversable black hole connected to a traversable white hole; and data from NASA (sources provided in the OP) that black holes can cause stars to orbit as well as suck in stars.

This is literally what happens onscreen in Thor 1. In Thor 4, Jane even cites two real movies, "Event Horizon" and "Interstellar," as relevant examples for wormholes. Both of those movies explicitly state and show onscreen a black hole being used to access wormholes for space transit. "Event Horizon" directly calls a black hole "the most destructive force in the universe." "Interstellar" directly states that the black hole has planets orbiting it as they would orbit a star.

All the onscreen evidence in the Thor franchise regarding the Bifrost equates it to generating star power.

 

[KLOL506]

"Not just a visual effect." If you're not denying that we see glowing white dots circle a hole in space, and you're not denying that we then see those glowing white dots fall into that hole in space, and you're not denying that we then see Loki fall into that hole in space and disappear, then I don't know how to answer that except to say that everything shown onscreen in a movie is a visual effect.

As for the proof, this comes from astrophysicist Jane Foster's statements in Thor 1 and Thor 4 that the Bifrost is an Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole; knowledge of the scientific definition (sources provided in the OP) of it as a traversable black hole connected to a traversable white hole; and data from NASA (sources provided in the OP) that black holes can cause stars to orbit as well as suck in stars.

Problem is, we're not shown if the stars got blown up either, and the best damage it did was, well, Jotunheim.

This is literally what happens onscreen in Thor 1. In Thor 4, Jane even cites two real movies, "Event Horizon" and "Interstellar," as relevant examples for wormholes. Both of those movies explicitly state and show onscreen a black hole being used to access wormholes for space transit. "Event Horizon" directly calls a black hole "the most destructive force in the universe." "Interstellar" directly states that the black hole has planets orbiting it as they would orbit a star.

All the onscreen evidence in the Thor franchise regarding the Bifrost equates it to generating star power.

If it truly did generate star level power it should have destroyed Jotunheim at beyond the sub-atomic level, yet it only takes out the largest buildings there.

 

[ParkerKent007]

Problem is, we're not shown if the stars got blown up either, and the best damage it did was, well, Jotunheim.


If it truly did generate star level power it should have destroyed Jotunheim at beyond the sub-atomic level, yet it only takes out the largest buildings there.

Again, the Bifrost was damaging a planet from another galaxy. Let's stick with your 1 second rule. Causing 1 second of damage to an object 1 foot from me requires a tiny fraction of the power needed to cause 1 second of the same level of damage to the same type of object that is an entire galaxy away from me.

But I do now understand the points you are making. I have no other points to add, and am fine with this thread being locked now, as long as it continues to remain visible to the public. Please do not delete this thread. Thanks.

 

[KLOL506]

Again, the Bifrost was damaging a planet from another galaxy. Let's stick with your 1 second rule. Causing 1 second of damage to an object 1 foot from me requires a tiny fraction of the power needed to cause 1 second of the same level of damage to the same type of object that is an entire galaxy away from me.

Inverse-square law works different on beams, massively inflates the result than when used on omnidirectional explosions where it actually should be used. We tried to look for the specific beam formula when trying to calculate the power of Garou and Saitama's punch combined which blew a massive gaping void several tens of thousands of light years away and destroyed a massive number of stars. Formula was never found and it'd be rejected even if it was.

But I do now understand the points you are making. I have no other points to add, and am fine with this thread being locked now, as long as it continues to remain visible to the public. Please do not delete this thread. Thanks.

We don't delete threads.

 

[KLOL506]

Ah ****, I lost track of that near the end and 3-A baseline was never revised to begin with.

Because it was wrong from the beginning due to one small mishap LOL

 

[ParkerKent007]

Inverse-square law works different on beams, massively inflates the result than when used on omnidirectional explosions where it actually should be used. We tried to look for the specific beam formula when trying to calculate the power of Garou and Saitama's punch combined which blew a massive gaping void several tens of thousands of light years away and destroyed a massive number of stars. Formula was never found and it'd be rejected even if it was.


We don't delete threads.

Final point that I think might be so obvious we, myself included, may have overlooked in this discussion.

The vast majority of the energy of the Bifrost is used in opening the wormhole, to traverse the distance of near instantaneous intergalactic travel. This is the Bifrost's main intended purpose, and what its energy is harnessed for to begin with. That, and the fact that the Bifrost is clearly intended to stop at the surface of the planet of arrival, explain why it takes so long for the Bifrost energy beam to build into enough destructive force to at some future time potentially destroy Jotenheim.

Therefore the most relevant energy to calculate its power is not the damage done to Jotenheim, nor its effect on stars. Both of those things are coincidental, and apparently debatable. What is mathematical, from a highly reputable objective source, is NASA's calculation that a wormhole with a diameter one millionth the size of a proton would require the energy of 10 Billion suns in one year (https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-4.html).

If we do absolutely no scaling at all, and just stick with that as the total Bifrost energy created in 1 second ... and the Bifrost energy beam DOES open up in 1 second onscreen ... then that is what hit Thor when he blew up the Rainbow Bridge. This then, becomes the base energy that Thor can tank.

In one year, the sun produces 1.23 x 10 ^ 35 Joules
(Source: National Air & Space Museum): https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/how-much-heat-does-sun-produce-year-0#:~:text=The sun produces 1.23 x,felt 150 million kilometers away.

Therefore, in one year, 10 Billion suns produce 1.23 x 10 ^ 45 Joules. This is what base level Thor tanked in 1 second onscreen. Remember, this is wormhole energy with diameter one millionth the size of a proton -- and Thor clearly was hit with at least that size Bifrost explosion in 1 second onscreen at the climax of Thor 1.

Thoughts?

 

[Marvel_Champion_07]

 

[KLOL506]

Final point that I think might be so obvious we, myself included, may have overlooked in this discussion.

The vast majority of the energy of the Bifrost is used in opening the wormhole, to traverse the distance of near instantaneous intergalactic travel. This is the Bifrost's main intended purpose, and what its energy is harnessed for to begin with. That, and the fact that the Bifrost is clearly intended to stop at the surface of the planet of arrival, explain why it takes so long for the Bifrost energy beam to build into enough destructive force to at some future time potentially destroy Jotenheim.

Therefore the most relevant energy to calculate its power is not the damage done to Jotenheim, nor its effect on stars. Both of those things are coincidental, and apparently debatable. What is mathematical, from a highly reputable objective source, is NASA's calculation that a wormhole with a diameter one millionth the size of a proton would require the energy of 10 Billion suns in one year (https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-4.html).

If we do absolutely no scaling at all, and just stick with that as the total Bifrost energy created in 1 second ... and the Bifrost energy beam DOES open up in 1 second onscreen ... then that is what hit Thor when he blew up the Rainbow Bridge. This then, becomes the base energy that Thor can tank.

In one year, the sun produces 1.23 x 10 ^ 35 Joules
(Source: National Air & Space Museum): https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/how-much-heat-does-sun-produce-year-0#:~:text=The sun produces 1.23 x,felt 150 million kilometers away.

Therefore, in one year, 10 Billion suns produce 1.23 x 10 ^ 45 Joules. This is what base level Thor tanked in 1 second onscreen. Remember, this is wormhole energy with diameter one millionth the size of a proton -- and Thor clearly was hit with at least that size Bifrost explosion in 1 second onscreen at the climax of Thor 1.

Thoughts?

You have not divided the energy yield by the timeframe.

1 calendar year is 3.154e+7 seconds.

As for the Sun,

1.23e+35 / 3.154e+7= 3.9e+27 W or 3.9e+27 J/s (High 6-A, Multi-Continent level)

For 10 billion suns,

1.23e+45 / 3.154e+7= 3.9e+37 W or 3.9e+37 J/s (5-A+, Large Planet level+), this would be the true durability of Thor.

You have to divide the entire energy yield with the timeframe taken to emit it. If it generates X joules in Y number of years, you must convert the year value to seconds, divide the joule value with the seconds value to get the watts value or joules/sec value, that will be the true energy it outputs every second, any longer than this and the energy cannot be considered to stack up higher, it will only be endurance, because there is no proof that all that energy linearly accumulated into the person tanking it.

However, there is one massive problem, it's not consistent with the actual damage output that the Bifrost beam outputs at Jotunheim, and even if we were to try and find the true energy at the source based on how much firepower it has left at the far edge, finding the true energy output at the source of the Bifrost (That being the bridge itself) is impossible given that the inverse-square law formula does not work with beams, it's only made for omnidirectional explosions.

 

[ParkerKent007]

You have not divided the energy yield by the timeframe.

1 calendar year is 3.154e+7 seconds.

As for the Sun,

1.23e+35 / 3.154e+7= 3.9e+27 W or 3.9e+27 J/s (High 6-A, Multi-Continent level)

For 10 billion suns,

1.23e+45 / 3.154e+7= 3.9e+37 W or 3.9e+37 J/s (5-A+, Large Planet level+), this would be the true durability of Thor.

You have to divide the entire energy yield with the timeframe taken to emit it. If it generates X joules in Y number of years, you must convert the year value to seconds, divide the joule value with the seconds value to get the watts value or joules/sec value, that will be the true energy it outputs every second, any longer than this and the energy cannot be considered to stack up higher, it will only be endurance, because there is no proof that all that energy linearly accumulated into the person tanking it.

However, there is one massive problem, it's not consistent with the actual damage output that the Bifrost beam outputs at Jotunheim, and even if we were to try and find the true energy at the source based on how much firepower it has left at the far edge, finding the true energy output at the source of the Bifrost (That being the bridge itself) is impossible given that the inverse-square law formula does not work with beams, it's only made for omnidirectional explosions.

1. We should NOT use the inverse-square law because it does NOT apply to wormholes, which negate standard space-time considerations. As Jane Foster says in Thor 4, "The Einstein-Rosen Bridge folds space so that Point A and Point B CO-EXIST in space and time." And, as you state, inverse-square law is for omnidirectional energy, which the Bifrost energy beam is not. Inverse-square law is the wrong formula to use. Similarly, inverse-square law does not apply to the quasi-omnidirectional blast Thor creates by breaking the Rainbow Bridge, because the Bifrost energy beam continues to shoot for a few seconds, drawing energy through that blast Thor feels, even after Thor breaks the bridge.

(Jane's onscreen astrophysics explanation in Thor 4):




(Bifrost continues to shoot after the bridge breaks in Thor 1):




2. We should NOT divide NASA's stated energy requirement by any timeframe, because it already is for using the wormhole within 1 second. This is explicitly stated in the source I cite: “It would allow almost instantaneous movement to another part of the universe." To clarify further, when NASA says “ten billion suns in one year” that is the energy amount needed to almost instantaneously open the wormhole AND traverse it. We know this because that same NASA source is referring to “tunnel consisting of two entrance holes that resemble black holes,” which by definition would suck in the object at near light speed. Another NASA source also states that black holes form in "a tenth of a second to half a second." So in every respect, NASA means wormhole usage takes at max 1 second.

(OP NASA source on time needed for wormhole travel):

https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-4.html

(New NASA source on time needed for black hole formation):

https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-33.html#:~:text=This process could take a,in less than a second.

3. Bifrost effect on Jotenheim is irrelevant because it does NOT equal the energy required to open and traverse the wormhole. This is like trying to calculate the gigajoules per second generated at a properly functioning Chernobyl nuclear power plant based on the physical damage Chernobyl produced in 1 second of full disaster meltdown mode 30 miles away from the plant. It’s an apples to oranges comparison that does not yield a comparable result. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was created to supply the populace with safe energy, not to kill countless people and leave the land radioactive for generations. Similar concepts with the Bifrost and Jotenheim. It simply was not built to blow up a planet.

(World Nuclear Association source makes clear that the properly functioning Chernobyl reactor capacity was well defined at 3200 MW thermal / 1000 MWe):

https://world-nuclear.org/informati...rity/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

BUT ...

(European Journal of Physics source shows how widely Chernobyl damage calcs still vary, from 42 GJ to 837 GJ):

https://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2021/01/epjn200018/epjn200018.html

4. Please give serious objective thought to what I have written here, so we can achieve our shared goal. Take a step back from the internal calculation conventions of this website for a moment and think about what is shown onscreen in Thor 1, what NASA provides, and what I’ve written here. This is the most reliable, evidence-based, scientific, and mathematical justification for base Thor being star level going by what is specifically shown and stated onscreen. Furthermore, if someone is going to make another CRT saying Thor is star level because he beat Zeus, the obvious response is going to be that’s an outlier without prior similar level feats (unless you count Thor beating Reality Stone Malekith about to destroy the universe, which I also mentioned in the OP.) Either way, I am providing feat consistency here from the start.

 

[KLOL506]

1. We should NOT use the inverse-square law because it does NOT apply to wormholes, which negate standard space-time considerations. As Jane Foster says in Thor 4, "The Einstein-Rosen Bridge folds space so that Point A and Point B CO-EXIST in space and time." And, as you state, inverse-square law is for omnidirectional energy, which the Bifrost energy beam is not. Inverse-square law is the wrong formula to use. Similarly, inverse-square law does not apply to the quasi-omnidirectional blast Thor creates by breaking the Rainbow Bridge, because the Bifrost energy beam continues to shoot for a few seconds, drawing energy through that blast Thor feels, even after Thor breaks the bridge.

(Jane's onscreen astrophysics explanation in Thor 4):




(Bifrost continues to shoot after the bridge breaks in Thor 1):




2. We should NOT divide NASA's stated energy requirement by any timeframe, because it already is for using the wormhole within 1 second. This is explicitly stated in the source I cite: “It would allow almost instantaneous movement to another part of the universe." To clarify further, when NASA says “ten billion suns in one year” that is the energy amount needed to almost instantaneously open the wormhole AND traverse it. We know this because that same NASA source is referring to “tunnel consisting of two entrance holes that resemble black holes,” which by definition would suck in the object at near light speed. Another NASA source also states that black holes form in "a tenth of a second to half a second." So in every respect, NASA means wormhole usage takes at max 1 second.

(OP NASA source on time needed for wormhole travel):

https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-4.html

(New NASA source on time needed for black hole formation):

https://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/faq/black_hole/bhole-33.html#:~:text=This process could take a,in less than a second.

3. Bifrost effect on Jotenheim is irrelevant because it does NOT equal the energy required to open and traverse the wormhole. This is like trying to calculate the gigajoules per second generated at a properly functioning Chernobyl nuclear power plant based on the physical damage Chernobyl produced in 1 second of full disaster meltdown mode 30 miles away from the plant. It’s an apples to oranges comparison that does not yield a comparable result. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was created to supply the populace with safe energy, not to kill countless people and leave the land radioactive for generations. Similar concepts with the Bifrost and Jotenheim. It simply was not built to blow up a planet.

(World Nuclear Association source makes clear that the properly functioning Chernobyl reactor capacity was well defined at 3200 MW thermal / 1000 MWe):

https://world-nuclear.org/informati...rity/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

BUT ...

(European Journal of Physics source shows how widely Chernobyl damage calcs still vary, from 42 GJ to 837 GJ):

https://www.epj-n.org/articles/epjn/full_html/2021/01/epjn200018/epjn200018.html

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Executor_N0 What do you think of this?

Furthermore, if someone is going to make another CRT saying Thor is star level because he beat Zeus, the obvious response is going to be that’s an outlier without prior similar level feats.

It won't be counted as an outlier because this Thor is far beyond any of his previous levels and has brought himself to shape considerably since Endgame, plus the opponents he fights are far beyond anything else on the scale that he previously experienced, so the outlier card does not fly here.

 

[Qawsedf234]

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Executor_N0 What do you think of this?

Even if we accepted everything at face value and assumed energy production = durability, then Thor scaling at all would be an outlier. This is the same character that's been knocked out by a High 6-C explosion and who's brother was greatly injured by someone hitting him into some marble. But in this case whatever the Tesseract can do (which is what the bridge is based on) is noted as stabilizing the quantum tunneling effect

Does Loki need any particular kind of power source?

He would have to heat the Cube to 120-million Kelvin just to break through the Coulomb barrier.

Unless Selvig has figured out how to stabilise the quantum tunnelling effect.

Well, if he could do that, he could achieve heavy ion fusion at any reactor on the planet.

They don't require the amount of energy suggested, since the Bifrost and the Tesseract can stabilize the wormhole tunnel without requiring a vast amount of energy.

So its either an outlier or a non-feat in the first place.

It won't be counted as an outlier

Its still making a vast array of assumptions, such as Celestials being Gods and them scaling to something vastly beyond anything else they've ever been shown to accomplish.

 

[ParkerKent007]

@DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234 @Executor_N0 What do you think of this?


It won't be counted as an outlier because this Thor is far beyond any of his previous levels and has brought himself to shape considerably since Endgame, plus the opponents he fights are far beyond anything else on the scale that he previously experienced, so the outlier card does not fly here.

And before someone says we cannot avoid inverse-square law ... we routinely avoid the reality that mass cannot travel faster than light according to accepted physics. See Flash and Sonic on VS Battles, then see NASA:

Flash:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Flash_(CW)#Powers_and_Stats

Sonic:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(Archie_Pre-Genesis_Wave)#Powers_and_Stats

NASA:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/three-ways-to-travel-at-nearly-the-speed-of-light

All I'm saying is we apply the same logic to the Bifrost: A repeated in-universe effect that requires avoiding a standard mathematical / physics law in order to abide what is shown and stated onscreen.

 

[KLOL506]

Its still making a vast array of assumptions, such as Celestials being Gods and them scaling to something vastly beyond anything else they've ever been shown to accomplish.

Not really tho, it's basically Thor's own words. But it's prolly best left for the upcoming CRT where more details will be revealed.

 

[ParkerKent007]

Even if we accepted everything at face value and assumed energy production = durability, then Thor scaling at all would be an outlier. This is the same character that's been knocked out by a High 6-C explosion and who's brother was greatly injured by someone hitting him into some marble. But in this case whatever the Tesseract can do (which is what the bridge is based on) is noted as stabilizing the quantum tunneling effect

They don't require the amount of energy suggested, since the Bifrost and the Tesseract can stabilize the wormhole tunnel without requiring a vast amount of energy.

So its either an outlier or a non-feat in the first place.

Its still making a vast array of assumptions, such as Celestials being Gods and them scaling to something vastly beyond anything else they've ever been shown to accomplish.

Regarding the view that the Sokovia blast knocked Thor unconscious, we don't have proof Thor was unconscious -- only that he fell into the water after the blast. Thor cannot fly without his hammer. Falling takes 10 seconds max. We see him in the water for another few seconds. Not even a minute would be needed to fall into the water and drop a bit from the blast. That does not require him to be unconscious.

Regarding Hulk smashing Loki: Loki himself stays conscious, and this is still a better durability feat by Loki than Reeve Superman getting knocked out by a city bus thrown by two Kryptonians. The city bus was made of standard metal and mostly hollow. Reeve Supes was out for several minutes. He also got KOed by a non-nuclear missile while unaffected by Kryptonite or Red Sun radiation. Yet Reeve Supes is listed on VS Battles at planet-level durability. Loki stayed conscious after a rampaging Hulk attack. Seems Loki should not be discounted for that, considering there is also significant onscreen evidence that Loki fell into a literal black hole at the end of Thor 1 and survived.

Reeve Supes City Bus:



Reeve Supes Non-Nuke Missile:



VS Battles Reeve Supes Durability Planet-Level +:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Superman_(Christopher_Reeve)#Powers_and_Stats

Loki Black Hole (literally a black hole in space with stars spinning into it):

 

[Qawsedf234]

Regarding the view that the Sokovia blast knocked Thor unconscious, we don't have proof Thor was unconscious

He fall in the water prone and then floated unmoving. If he wasn't knocked out he was effected by it, which wouldn't work if he was quite literally a couple dectillion times more durable.

Reeve Superman

We're talking about Thor and the MCU. If you feel like Reeves Superman is overrated then make a CRT on him. Bringing him up is just moving the goal post of saying "If we do this for X why can't we do this for Y"?

Loki Black Hole (literally a black hole in space with stars spinning into it):

That's actually the worst thing you could have posted. Since Loki falls with those shining lights and he's similar in size and we canonically know he was dumped near Thanos with no giant stars around. So your example debunks your star claim here.

 

[ParkerKent007]

He fall in the water prone and then floated unmoving. If he wasn't knocked out he was effected by it, which wouldn't work if he was quite literally a couple dectillion times more durable.


We're talking about Thor and the MCU. If you feel like Reeves Superman is overrated then make a CRT on him. Bringing him up is just moving the goal post of saying "If we do this for X why can't we do this for Y"?


That's actually the worst thing you could have posted. Since Loki falls with those shining lights and he's similar in size and we canonically know he was dumped near Thanos with no giant stars around. So your example debunks your entire claim here.

We do not canonically know where Loki was dumped because MCU movies do not reference guidebooks or supposed tie-in comics. WoG creators also contradict both their own real-life statements and statements of their collaborators over time. If we stick solely with what is said and shown onscreen in these movies -- which we should -- then the evidence is that Loki fell into a black hole that also was sucking in stars.

It is not goal-post shifting to seek consistency of scaling on a website whose ENTIRE goal is to achieve that for characters across different franchises and media while having them battle each other across franchises and media. Saying "If we do this for X why can't we do this for Y"? is the ONLY way to maintain logical and practical consistency. Otherwise all of this is nonsense.

 

[Qawsedf234]

which we should -- then the evidence is that Loki fell into a black hole that also was sucking in stars.

He fall into a hole generated by the Bifrost that was sucking in objects the same size as Loki. For all we know they were crystals from the bottom of Asgard or asteroids that surround the place. The claim they were stars is immediately proven to be false when we can make out a size comparison between Loki and one of the lights.

It is not goal-post shifting

It is, because you're using inconsistency of one character from a different franchise to justify an inconsistent claim of another. A better example of your point would be to use an inconsistency in the MCU like Hulk being harmed by a helicopter rather than Reeves Superman struggling with something.

 

[KLOL506]

We do not canonically know where Loki was dumped because MCU movies do not reference guidebooks or supposed tie-in comics. WoG creators also contradict both their own real-life statements and statements of their collaborators over time. If we stick solely with what is said and shown onscreen in these movies -- which we should -- then the evidence is that Loki fell into a black hole that also was sucking in stars.

Reference guidebooks and the tie-in comics are conisdered to be canon as well as WoG as long as they do not contradict the source material and are made in a serious manner, the movies not referencing them is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This rule applies to all verses on this site. It's also why we can use anime versions of manga feats as long as they remain original to the manga version of the feat without any egregious deviations and/or adds extra context/details regarding the feat.

 

[ParkerKent007]

He fall into a hole generated by the Bifrost that was sucking in objects the same size as Loki. For all we know they were crystals from the bottom of Asgard or asteroids that surround the place. The claim they were stars is immediately proven to be false when we can make out a size comparison between Loki and one of the lights.

It is, because your using inconsistency of one character to justify an inconsistent claim of another. A better example of your point would be to use an inconsistency in the MCU like Hulk being harmed by a helicopter rather than Reeves Superman struggling with something.

In a universe with rapid healing factors and the ability to ignore pain while doing insane feats, cuts that do not prevent the character from accomplishing their feats seem irrelevant. Hela got cut constantly and still was fine while destroying Asgard's army. That helicopter did not prevent Hulk from doing anything. Hulk did not even show that it hurt him. Reeve Supes meanwhile was OUT COLD FROM A CITY BUS. If VS Battles is going to accept that without factoring it into durability, VS Battles should accept the same in the MCU.

As for the Bifrost, Loki, whatever he fell into in space, and whatever those white dots are, as worst it is debatable. You are offering zero evidence here, only your interpretation of size of Loki to other objects and what that might mean. However, if you follow narrative intent of Jane referencing the Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole and see my OP links citing NASA on that being defined as a black hole connected to a white hole, my NASA links showing that the smallest black hole is 3.8 solar masses (3.8 Earth suns in size), and my NASA links that larger black holes have stars orbiting them and even eating stars, then Loki falling into a black hole that was sucking in stars in Thor 1 is in no way a stretch but what is actually the narrative intent.

 

[Qawsedf234]

In a universe with rapid healing factors and the ability to ignore pain while doing insane feats, cuts that do not prevent the character from accomplishing their feats seem irrelevant.

You're missing the comparison here. Hulk is rated as being able to output energy in the hundreds of Gigatons. A helicopter scratching and wounding his entire body contradicts that idea massively. As does him passing out from a terminal velocity fall. Those are direct examples of a power inconsistency in the MCU that contradicts our profiles, rather than bring up a character from a completely different franchise.

You are offering zero evidence here

But I am giving evidence: Visual. We can see Loki's body as he goes into the same hole the ball of light gets sucked in to. You would need to disprove this visual claim, which is impossible as there's nothing else to this scene.

It can't be a star because Loki is directly comparable to both it and the object that sucks it in.

my NASA links

It being a Black Hole is also not proven. Its created from the Bifrost which can stabilize quantum tunnels and isn't an instantaneous form of travel like a IRL wormhole. The MCU also features static wormholes that appear constantly and you characters like Bruce Banner or Gamora survive travelling through these wormholes. They don't require the energy you're suggesting they do and they don't operate how NASA says they do as it takes a quantifiable amount of time to travel through these portals.

 

[ParkerKent007]

You're missing the comparison here. Hulk is rated as being able to output energy in the hundreds of Gigatons. A helicopter scratching and wounding his entire body contradicts that idea massively. As does him passing out from a terminal velocity fall. Those are direct examples of a power inconsistency in the MCU that contradicts our profiles, rather than bring up a character from a completely different franchise.

But I am giving evidence: Visual. We can see Loki's body as he goes into the same hole the ball of light gets sucked in to. You would need to disprove this visual claim, which is impossible as there's nothing else to this scene.

It can't be a star because Loki is directly comparable to both it and the object that sucks it in.

It being a Black Hole is also not proven. Its created from the Bifrost which can stabilize quantum tunnels and isn't an instantaneous form of travel like a IRL wormhole. The MCU also features static wormholes that appear constantly and you characters like Bruce Banner or Gamora survive travelling through these wormholes. They don't require the energy you're suggesting they do and they don't operate how NASA says they do as it takes a quantifiable amount of time to travel through these portals.

1. I do not see Hulk blood v Helicopter blade as an in-universe inconsistency. Strength, durability, and healing factor are three different powers. Interconnected, sure, but distinct. They mean different things and are not quantifiably able to be equated. As for Hulk transforming into Banner, neither Avengers 1 nor AoU explicitly show or state Hulk getting knocked out. Just that Hulk turned back into Banner. We don't even see Banner unconscious. The workman in Avengers 1 even says, "You were awake when you fell." If there is some guidebook or tie-in comic that shows it, if VS Battles honors it then so be it but I do not because it's not onscreen.

2. I am not seeing what you say that you see with Loki and the stars. As far as I can see, Loki disappears well before he is on equal distance as the stars that get sucked in. Plus I really hate debating what the white dots are swirling around the hole Loki fell into. I always thought they were stars. I don't see how they can be interpreted as anything else. And I don't know how else they should have been represented visually onscreen. But if we keep discussing this it's just "no, you're wrong / no, you are" which is childish. Interpret it how you will, I guess.

3. Your third point ignores Jane's statements defining the Bifrost as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge wormhole, which has specific meaning in real-world astrophysics. Plus, the MCU makes it very clear that Jane is an astrophysicist. Therefore, when she uses real-world astrophysics terms, their definitions should apply to calcs.

4. One final point about comparing the energy of the Bifrost to that of the Tesseract to open wormholes, and this exchange:

Does Loki need any particular kind of power source?

He would have to heat the Cube to 120-million Kelvin just to break through the Coulomb barrier.

Unless Selvig has figured out how to stabilise the quantum tunnelling effect.

Well, if he could do that, he could achieve heavy ion fusion at any reactor on the planet.

The Bifrost is not the Tesseract. Banner and Stark were discussing what Selvig needed to do with external apparatus to affect the Tesseract, not the power that the Tesseract itself needed to generate to open the wormhole. And the 120-million Kelvin is just one form of energy that is distinct from the immense gravity issues that wormholes present. So none of that exchange is relevant to the Bifrost.